Manufacturing a Path to Martial Law

In the interest of brevity, I have to assume you have been reading my series of posts on this issue. I also assume you have a working knowledge of the social problems and the arguments presented by the different schools of thought as to their causes and solutions. Furthermore, if you want to get the most from this post, you need to approach what follows from a position of: “What if people in our government really are revolutionaries who want to bring down the government of the United States?”

We start with this story – not because I drink Beck’s Kool Aid, but because he is the only one I am aware of who is trying to tell this story to the masses (a story that has been known inside our government circles long before Beck picked it up):

“Beck, who learned the term from a former Special Ops agent,described a scenario where, in the wake of an Islamic terror attack and subsequent government inaction, Bubba, pushed to the brink, shoots someone who appears to be Muslim. When the authorities come to arrest Bubba, however, citizens rally to his defense, blaming not the murderer, but rather the government for causing the problem in the first place.

Even if they know Bubba is wrong, the citizens will not allow him to be apprehended by the authorities. The reason being that citizens believe government has only exacerbated the threat of Islamic terrorism by allowing borders to remain porous while the Transit Authority focuses on making innocent, everyday travelers remove their belts and shoes and feel as if they have been “sexually assaulted” — a move most argue does not make the public any safer.”

But this process does not require an Islamic attack, only the general situation presented by Islamic terrorism. I believe the general idea goes back at least as far as the 1960’s, and is now being used in a refined form by people who were part of those 60’s attempts to force the government to implement the changes they seek. These people are now in positions of power in every level of our government as well as our social institutions and the majority of them have never renounced their revolutionary desires. In fact, men such as Bill Aires, friend and advisor to Obama, have recently said they wish they could have done more. While these people were busy studying how to topple a nation, they were also busy “laundering” themselves to the public so that – now – they appear to be clean and proper and responsible members of society. Yet, they still say Alinsky is their hero and they idolize Mao and Castro, Chavez and Chez – radical revolutionaries, every one.

So, if not Islamic terrorism, how do you create a sufficient decline in the public’s confidence in the government such that it creates a crisis sufficient enough to provide an excuse to declare martial law? Simple: you start a race war.

I can anticipate the primary objections to this claim already, but it is not so hard to create – if you are intentionally trying to do so. You start by creating a dependency class, then picking one minority group and destroying their family structure. Then you tell that minority group that their plight is the fault of the majority, and you tell them that majority “owes them” for stealing from them. You design public policy so that it naturally favors the majority over the minority because of the culture you have created within that minority group. Then you use the result to stir more resentment and hatred within that minority group by claiming everything happening to them is the result of race. At the same time, you work the other side by telling the majority that the minority is abusing government to trample their rights and that they are being bled white by taxes needed to sustain this minority dependency class. At this point, you have exploited the natural characteristic of human nature to be wary of people who are different from ourselves and used it to create real racial tensions – possibly even racial hatred. You then strengthen these public impressions by making sure all forms of news media and popular entertainment re-enforce the public impression you are building.

I contend that – whether by design or by default – this process is greatly responsible for the story behind this story:

“It’s raining. He’s just walking around, looking about,” Zimmerman told the dispatcher. “He’s just staring looking at all the houses.”

Later, he lamented: “These a**holes always get away.”[emphasis added]

Zimmerman is the neighborhood watch volunteer in the Central Florida town of Sanford who on Feb. 26 shot and killed Miami Gardens teenager Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman claimed the teen started an altercation, and then — in fear for his life — Zimmerman pulled a weapon from his waistband and fired. He has not been charged.

“(Reuters) – Americans are deeply divided by race over the killing of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, with 91 percent of African-Americans saying he was unjustly killed, while just 35 percent of whites thought so, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Thursday.”

At this point, all you need is a flash point, or series of flash points that will push people over the top and lead them to take the law into their own hands. So you start looking for the right story or stories to manipulate toward that end.

Then you find one: a minority youth is killed by a man where there is sufficient “evidence” available to “manufacture” a public image of injustice. You trumpet how the shooter has racially profiled the dead youth, that he took the law into his own hands against the commands of the police and he shot the minority youth in cold blood. You “edit” 911 tapes to make it appear the shooter made racial slurs about the dead youth to give the impression that the shooter was a racist. You report the race of the shooter as though he is a member of the majority group – even though he isn’t. Then you ignore violations of federal law when leaders of the minority community start to call for violence and issue bounties of $1 million for the death of the shooter. You also have government officials and community leaders make comments that imply the local police are racist and imply support for the minority group that is now breaking the law to demand what they call justice. In fact, you go so far as to create an impression that the government and media are actually practicing reverse racism by ignoring a mirror opposite story about a minority shooting and killing someone of another race under very similar circumstance.

The whole cycle is strengthened by government refusal to respond to violations of the law, as long as they can even remotely be connected to supposed “demands for justice,” the government ignores its duty to protect the general population. This strengthens the notion that the government is illegitimate on all sides of the divide. Then, after a while, the government appears to give in and charges the shooter, leading to stories such as this one:

George Zimmerman wouldn’t be in jail without the movement to demand the truth about how Trayvon Martin died

“Special prosecutor Angela Corey’s decision to charge Zimmerman with second-degree murder in the killing of the unarmed black teenager is just a first step. There’s debate about Corey’s charging decision and the strength of her case against Zimmerman. A verdict is a long way off. Yet Wednesday represented a victory for the forces of social justice nonetheless.”

There are two important points in this story. First, and the subject for another post, “social justice” isn’t justice. This is part of an effort to divide this society and destroy our nation’s founding ideals and principles. The notion of justice must always be based on the individual – never on a group or society. The notion of group justice is a perversion of the entire idea of justice. It is an inversion of reality.

Second, and most important to this post, look at how it is being claimed that a mere charge and arrest is a victory for justice in this case. This does two things at once. It undermines the majority’s support in the government and legal system by giving the impression that the rule of law can be subverted through violence and/or the threat of violence. It also provides an opportunity to set the flame to the fuse that has been set by making sure the charges against the shooter are dismissed or the shooter is acquitted. That is what this story should tell you:

“Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.” (via Mediaite)

This is not a mistake a seasoned prosecutor should make, but she has already had an “excuse” provided for her: she did this because she is running for re-election (this actually supports the parallel campaign to do away with elected prosecutors in this country, but again, that is another story). This is how Casey Anthony was acquitted for a crime the majority of America believes she was involved in committing. Furthermore, these charges were made without going to the grand jury so as to strengthen the impression of political motivations. So, following the practice of never assuming people are stupid and FDR’s admonishment that nothing in politics happens by accident, it should be assumed that these charges were filed this way for a reason – to make sure the shooter is released, which will immediately set fire in the minority community by giving them “proof” that there is institutional racism and they will only get “justice” by taking things in their own hands.

This is how it works, and how I believe it is actually being pushed. Islamic terrorism just provides an opportunity to push in more than one direction, and against more than one set of groups in society. The principle in both cases is the same: revolutionaries within our government and social institutions are seeking to create a crisis that they can then use as an excuse to declare an emergency and demand “emergency powers” so they can “deal” with the crisis. I am aware that many skeptics will tell me I am spinning conspiracy theories, but these same people ignore the evidence available to them. This is a complicated issue, and it demands the reader to think it through – something we have been largely trained not to do anymore. But its complexity is part of the camouflage that allows it to operate out in the open. We already have several minority groups working together to – so they claim – “train” armies to wage war on this government over perceived racial and social injustices, yet the media will not tell you about it and the government will not pursue them. This is why I wrote The Enemy within II: Two Birds – One Post.

When we look, we have evidence of the control available to these people in nearly every story in the media. Look at how quickly the tension seems to have vanished after Zimmerman was arrested – as though the problem is resolved. It “disappeared” because the media dropped it, but if the media promotes stories just to make money, why aren’t they fanning the flames still like they did with the Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson cases? If all they want are ratings, the martin shooting is still ripe for weeks of guessing by the pundits, and it would certainly generate ratings. But, if you let it drop and “suddenly” – the charges are dropped, or Zimmerman is acquitted, why, you have an explosion on your hands just waiting to be manipulated. The point is this: IF you think this way, AND you have control over the media and government, this si not that hard to make happen.

NOW HERE THIS, AND HEAR IT WELL!

This is just a summary of a complex issue, but that complexity is part of the camouflage that allows it to operate out in the open. I ask you to consider it and, if you will, look into this more closely. If I am correct, this nation is going to face social unrest far greater than it did in the 1960’s, and it is going to be imperative that we are ready for it and now how to respond. If our nation faces violence, especially racial or religious violence, WE MUST NOT RESPOND WITH VIOLENCE!!! Or model here is Christ, and Gandhi and Rev King. We must be peaceful in our demand that the government be set right: corruption be rooted out, those who are guilty of violating the public trust are charged and PROPERLY tried, and that our system of government based on the protection of individual rights and liberty is restored. I am not saying we do not defend ourselves, but we must not provide any more reason for the government to declare an emergency and seek emergency powers. The path is being cleared by the executive orders Obama has been signing and the “trial balloones” that various Democratic leaders have been floating. We must not give them their excuse, because that excuse is not meant so much for us as it is for the rest of the world. These people are seeking an excuse for their foreign friends, to justify the takeover of this nation according to their foreign friends’ notions of “justice.” If we give them the reason, and they declare that emergency and get those emergency powers, we will go the way of 1930’s Germany. This is how it always happens to a republic, and we are no different. Please, just be aware and be ready – PLEASE! And remember this because it was a warning of what is to come:

“The war made possible for us the solution of a whole series of problems that could never have been solved in normal times.”

I’m laughing because this is your definition of brevity? B., we talked about this very thing eons ago at the News Herald. I don’t think Zimmerman will be the red herring (at that point it will be old news,) but I do believe this administration will have and use one.

I could have made it 4 times as long and STILL not included everything that supports my case. This is a compromise between making a strong case while not posting what could be a stand alone blog in its own right. yet, there are those who will STILL reject the thought that there is anything to this other than totally innocent “happenstance.”

But then, they most likely don’t know what FDR said about political “happenstance,” either. :-(

Why the hello don’t you just put us out of our scrolling misery and just do it in parts? Example: Act I – The Creation of Czars. Act II – Constitutional limits of the Executive Branch. Act III – Oh, you get my point!